no, you didn't get it. positing theory par rapport reality in the manner you did, a Phd, is really lax. its like wearing a pair of expensive trousers and shitting in them.

either omit mentioning theory or give an accurate assessment. was "japan" planned on the basis of a theory/theories? were theories derived from japan? if yes to the former, then how can you divide theory/ies from realit/ies in your description of the book? if no, then why even open up a subject that does not exist in the first place? if yes to the latter question, then it clearly was a fallacious association you assume between the actual matter at hand (the pre-theory...ie. the reality) and the one that is altogether besides the point (the post reality...i.e. the theory). if no...we're digressing.

excuse me but its quite vulgar what you said. you're not allowed to be so casually flaunting shit-laden trousers. either be schizophrenic, so we may excuse you and stare the other way saying "gosh, those crazy ass white people" or wear diapers.

Andre Sorenson does not start from nor really deal with urban planning theory in his book and instead explains what happened factually - policy and history and such. It may be a turn off for someone looking for a simple meme to exploit, or some theoretical framework that can be used to make sense of things. Hence the warning. I think its worth knowing this before picking it up. Some heavy lifting is required.

but anyway, this is about helping someone find some books. Feel free to parse the way the title was delivered, knock yourself out. Not sure it matters a hell of a lot that you don't like it.